Please take our brief survey

Blueprints Programs = Positive Youth Development

Return to Search Results

Promising Program Seal

Early Literacy and Learning Model

Blueprints Program Rating: Promising

A literacy-focused curriculum and support system designed for preschool children ages 3, 4, and 5 years old. The program is designed to enhance existing classroom curricula by specifically focusing on improving children's early literacy skills and knowledge.

  • Dr. Madelaine Cosgrove
  • Florida Institute of Education at the University of North Florida
  • Adam W. Herbert University Center
  • 12000 Alumni Drive
  • Jacksonville, FL 32224
  • USA
  • (904) 620-2496
  • mcosgrov@unf.edu
  • h.mousa@unf.edu
  • Early Cognitive Development
  • Preschool Communication/Language Development

    Program Type

    • Academic Services
    • School - Individual Strategies
    • Teacher Training

    Program Setting

    • Home
    • School

    Continuum of Intervention

    • Universal Prevention (Entire Population)
    • Selective Prevention (Elevated Risk)

    A literacy-focused curriculum and support system designed for preschool children ages 3, 4, and 5 years old. The program is designed to enhance existing classroom curricula by specifically focusing on improving children's early literacy skills and knowledge.

      Population Demographics

      The program targets preschool aged children (age 3 to 5 years,) living in low income neighborhoods. The program has been tested with samples that are primarily African American with smaller percentages of White and Hispanic children living in urban and rural areas. There was an equal mix of male and female children who were an average of 4-5 years old.

      Age

      • Early Childhood (3-4) - Preschool

      Gender

      • Male and Female

      Race/Ethnicity

      • All Race/Ethnicity

      Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details

      The sample in both studies was mostly African American with smaller numbers of White and Hispanic participants.

      The program targets children who reside in low-income neighborhoods and are likely to come to school underprepared for literacy success. It provides an enriched learning environment and supports family involvement in learning. While the program is delivered classroom-wide, additional services are targeted to children assessed with low levels of early literacy skills.

      • School
      • Family
      Risk Factors
      • Family: Low socioeconomic status
      • School: Poor academic performance
      Protective Factors
      • Family: Parental involvement in education
      • School: Instructional Practice

      See also: Early Literacy and Learning Model Logic Model (PDF)

      The Early Literacy and Learning Model (ELLM) is a literacy-focused curriculum and support system targeting young children from low-income families. The program is designed to enhance existing classroom curricula by specifically focusing on children’s early literacy skills and knowledge. The program is designed to be implemented year-round or during the academic year and supplements the daily activities of the classroom. Teacher support and family involvement opportunities also occur regularly throughout the year.

      The ELLM program components include the following:

      • curriculum and literacy building blocks;
      • assessment for instructional improvement;
      • professional development for literacy coaches and teachers;
      • family involvement; and
      • collaborative partnerships.

      The Early Literacy and Learning Model (ELLM) is a literacy-focused curriculum and support system targeting preschool children ages 3, 4, and 5 years old, particularly those from low-income neighborhoods. The program is designed to enhance existing classroom curricula by specifically focusing on improving children's early literacy skills and knowledge. The program is designed to be implemented year-round or during the academic year and supplements the daily activities of the classroom. Teacher support and family involvement opportunities also occur regularly throughout the year.

      The ELLM program components include the following:

      • curriculum and literacy building blocks;
      • assessment for instructional improvement;
      • professional development for literacy coaches and teachers;
      • family involvement; and
      • collaborative partnerships.

      The ELLM curriculum materials include a set of literacy performance standards; monthly literacy packets; targeted instructional strategies; resource guides for teachers; a classroom book-lending library; family and teacher tip sheets; and literacy calendars.

      One hour of daily literacy instruction is provided to implement the ELLM literacy building blocks. Trained literacy coaches provide instructional support to preschool teachers who use the curriculum.

      The ELLM program also contains a family involvement action plan. Families have access to many resources, including a classroom book-lending library that enables children to take books home daily to share with their parents. Parents receive monthly family tip sheets and calendars with suggestions for literacy activities they can engage in with their children. Parents also have the opportunity to engage in preschool site-based family activities during the school year.

      If preschool children (especially those at-risk) regularly engage in intensive, explicit, and intentional early literacy instruction; embedded in quality programs using standards- and research-based curricula delivered with fidelity by practitioners who are provided ongoing job-embedded support; then, participating children will acquire the knowledge and skills needed to become successful readers.

      • Skill Oriented

      The Early Literacy and Learning Model (ELLM) was evaluated in a national experimental study (PCERC, 2008) and in a complimentary experimental study that took place simultaneously with the first-year of the national pilot study (Cosgrove et al., 2006). The national first-year pilot study was comprised of a subset of the classes sampled for the complimentary experimental study. The sampled preschools in the studies included full-day Head Start, subsidized, faith-based, and public school-based early intervention programs located in three geographic areas of Florida.

      The national study (PCERC, 2008) included classrooms from 28 preschools (all but one of the intervention group teachers had been assigned to the intervention group during the national pilot study year - a new group of wait-list control teachers were selected for the national study). A total of 244 children between the ages of 3 and 5 years (average 4.6 years) took part. The children were assessed at the start and end of the preschool year. The overall classroom environment, teacher-child interaction and classroom instructional practices were also measured during the preschool year. A follow up assessment took place at the end of the children's Kindergarten school year to evaluate the long term effectiveness of the ELLM program on the children's literacy skills.

      The complimentary experimental study (Cosgrove et al., 2006) included a final sample of 48 classrooms and teachers and 466 children. The children's emergent literacy skills and alphabet recognition were tested at the start and end of their preschool year. A follow-up study (adding 2003-2004 kindergarten data to the original study) was conducted (Wehry, 2006a, 2006b, and 2006c).

      Results of the two studies, the national study and the complimentary study, are mixed. In the national study (PCERC, 2008) there was a delayed effect of the Early Literacy and Learning Model (ELLM) on children's language development. Relative to children who had been in control preschool classrooms, children who were the ELLM preschool classrooms had higher ratings on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPTV) and the Grammatical Understanding portion of the Test of Language Development (TOLD) at the end of their Kindergarten year. This difference had not been present at the end of preschool.

      No other immediate or delayed effects were found in the preschool year of the national study (PCERC, 2008). ELLM did not have a statistically detectable effect on the children's mathematic understanding, early reading, phonological awareness, or behavior. There was also no statistically detectable effect on teacher's overall classroom management, teacher-child relationships, or classroom instruction at any time period.

      In the complimentary study (Cosgrove et al., 2006) examination of the Test of Early Reading Ability - 3 and Alphabet Letter Recognition Inventory posttest scores (collected during the intervention year) indicated that those of the ELLM preschool children were higher than those of the wait-list control children on all measures. Compared with children assigned to the control group, children assigned to the treatment group had greater recognition of letters and greater scores on a measure of emerging literacy (TERA-3).

      In the national study (PCERC, 2008):

      • No evidence of impact at intervention year post-test.
      • No evidence of an effect on the children's mathematic understanding, early reading, phonological awareness, or behavior.
      • There was also no evidence of an effect on teachers’ overall classroom management, teacher-child relationships, or classroom instruction at any time period.
      • There was a delayed effect on vocabulary that showed up at the end of Kindergarten (1 year post-intervention).

      In the complimentary study (Cosgrove et al., 2006):

      • Children who received ELLM showed greater recognition of letters and better emerging literacy skills than children who did not.

      Not reported.

      National study (PCERC, 2008)

      At posttest at the end of the intervention year, no statistically significant effects were found. Effects sizes ranged from .53 to -.92. At the end of the follow-up year, two statistically significant effects were found. A number of the effects indicated a negative impact of the program – though the results were not statistically significant. The statistically significant effects had small to medium effects sizes (.34 and .44). Effect sizes on the other measures ranged from .00 to .30.

      Complimentary study (Cosgrove et al., 2006)

      At the end of the intervention year, with the exception of the differences in the TERA-3 Conventions of Print scale adjusted mean posttest scores, resulting effect sizes were 25 percent of a standard deviation or larger.

      • ARLI ES =.25
      • TERA-3 Reading ES =.28
      • TERA-3 Alphabet =.28
      • TERA-3 Conventions of Print=.17
      • TERA-3 Meaning ES = .29

      At the end of the follow-up year kindergarten children, who attended ELLM preschool, outscored control students in TERA-3 Reading Quotient and Alphabet (Wehry, 2006a, 2006b, and 2006c). Effect sizes were

      • Reading Quotient = .26
      • Alphabet = .34

      The tested population in both studies was mostly African American with smaller numbers of White and Hispanic participants. Additionally, the program was tested in three geographical areas in Florida.

      PCERC (2008)

      • Children in two sites that dropped out of the study were not followed, and no information was provided on efforts to follow-up children who left prematurely.
      • No detail on differential attrition was presented.
      • All but a few effects were insignificant. The analysis in the national study (PCERC, 2008) was not conducted at the level of randomization.

      Cosgrove et al. (2006)

      • No discussion of checks of implementation fidelity or how fidelity influenced outcomes.
      • No statement on efforts to collect outcome data on the children or teachers who left the studies prematurely.

      The PCERC (2008) was not as detailed about the methodology used as Cosgrove et al. (2006), so some information on the randomization process as described in the PCERC (2008) study actually came from Cosgrove et al. (2006).

      • Blueprints: Promising

      Cosgrove, M., Fountain, C., Wehry, S., Wood, J. & Kasten, K. (2006,April). Randomized Field Trial of an Early Literacy Curriculum and Instructional Support System. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

      Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium (PCERC) (2008). Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER 2008-2009), pg. 99-108, C-17, C-18, D-17, D-18. National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

      Dr. Madelaine Cosgrove (mcosgrov@unf.edu)
      or Howaida Mousa (h.mousa@unf.edu)
      Florida Institute of Education at the University of North Florida
      Adam W. Herbert University Center
      12000 Alumni Drive
      Jacksonville, FL 32224
      (904) 620-2496

      Curriculum information and materials available at: www.unf.edu/dept/fie/ellm/

      Study 2

      Cosgrove, M., Fountain, C., Wehry, S., Wood, J. & Kasten, K. (2006). Randomized Field Trial of an Early Literacy Curriculum and Instructional Support System. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

      Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium (PCERC) (2008). Effects of Preschool Curriculum Programs on School Readiness (NCER 2008-2009), pp. 99-108, C-17, C-18, D-17, D-18. National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

      Evaluation Methodology

      Design

      The Early Literacy and Learning Model (ELLM) was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial the included classrooms from 28 preschools located in three geographic areas of Florida. The sampled preschools included full-day Head Start, subsidized, faith based, and public school-based early intervention programs. Randomization was done during an earlier national pilot study (2002-2003). However, two preschools dropped out during the pilot year and were replaced for the national study year (2003-2004). A total of 30 classroom and teachers were randomized, but two dropped out leaving 28 classrooms and teachers for the analysis.

      Regarding the unit of randomization, the study states that 30 preschool classrooms (10 in County A, 10 in County B, and 10 in County C) were randomly assigned to the treatment or wait-list control condition. Further, it states that only one preschool classroom per preschool was randomly assigned to the ELLM or wait-list control condition and that randomly selected preschool classrooms in a given elementary school neighborhood were randomly assigned to only one of the two conditions. This latter statement implies that the unit of randomization was elementary school neighborhoods, not preschools classrooms.

      A total of 297 children and 294 parents were recruited for participation in the national study. The final sample included 244 children (137 treatment, 107 control) and 243 parents. Data were collected on 243 children and 204 parents at the time of the baseline data collection. In the follow-up year of the national evaluation, the sample of schools went from 28 preschools to 119 schools with Kindergarten classrooms. The sample of classrooms went from 28 preschool classrooms to 175 Kindergarten classrooms. The Kindergarten sample included 237 children and 236 parents from original sample of participants. Follow up data were collected on 218 children and 177 parents.

      Appendix B (page B-9) reports on completion rates at pretest, posttest (end of preschool), and follow-up (end of kindergarten). For children, the rates were 100%, 92%, and 89%. It is not clear to what extent the national research team attempted to collect post-test and/or follow up data from children who left the study prematurely.

      Regarding the counterfactual condition, a number of curricula were used in the control classrooms to include Creative Curriculum (Dodge, Colker and Heroman 2002), & Beyond Centers and Circletime (Phelps 2002), High Reach Learning Pre-K (High Reach Learning 1997) and High/Scope (Hohmann and Weikart 2002).

      Sample

      The research team recruited preschool programs from three distinct geographic locations within the state. The research team first identified elementary school neighborhoods in each geographic location (Counties A, B, and C) with low-performing schools. Using the Florida Department of Education's school grading report card system the research team identified grade D and F elementary schools in each of the three counties. It was expected that children from the preschool programs in these low-performing elementary school neighborhoods would transition into these grade D and F elementary schools during the kindergarten year of the study. As such, preschool programs within the low performing elementary school neighborhoods were randomly selected for inclusion in the sampling pool of preschool programs.

      The average age of children was 4.6 years at the time of the baseline data collection and half (50%) was male. The overall sample was primarily African American (71%) with smaller percentages of White (14%) and Hispanic (8%) children. Approximately 13% of the children were reported by their parents as having a disability.

      The average age of the primary caregiver (usually the mother) was 31 years. Almost half (40%) of the primary caregivers were never married; 37% were married at the time of the fall assessment data collection. More than one-third of the primary caregivers reported having had some college (36%) or had graduated from college (6%); 37% had a high school diploma or GED; and 22% had not finished high school. More than half (54%) of the primary caregivers were employed full-time; 11% were employed part-time; and 33% were unemployed. At baseline, a higher percentage of parents in the treatment group had completed some post-high school education relative to those assigned to the control group (41% vs. 29%, p < .01).

      There were 28 teachers who participated in the national preschool year intervention study. All were female. The majority identified themselves as African American (64%) or White (21%). The preschool teachers had on average 11 years of teaching experience, with an average of seven years teaching preschool. Fifty percent of the teachers had a high school diploma or GED and 21% had a bachelor’s degree. Many of the teachers reported having a state-awarded preschool certificate (52%); a teaching license or certificate (46%); or a Child Development Associate (CDA) credential (46%). Eighteen percent reported having no teacher certification credentials. At baseline, teachers in the treatment group had more years of experience teaching in a preschool setting relative to those assigned to the control group (9 years vs. 4 years, p < .01).

      Measures

      Data were collected by the national research team from parents, teachers, and schools and through direct assessments of the children. No reliability or validity information was provided on the 23 measures used; however, most are commonly used measures in educational intervention research.

      Mathematics

      • Woodcock Johnson (WJ) Applied Problems
      • Child Math Assessment-Abbreviated (CMA-A) Composite Score
      • Shape Composition

      Reading

      • Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA-3)
      • Woodcock Johnson (WJ) Letter Word Identification
      • Woodcock Johnson (WJ) Spelling

      Phonological Awareness

      • Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP; Elision subtest) (preschool only) & Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP; Elison subset) (kindergarten only)

      Language

      • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)
      • Test of Language (TOLD) Grammatical Understanding subtest

      Behavior

      • Social Skills Rating System (SSRS) Social Skills scale
      • SSRS Problem Behaviors scale
      • Preschool Learning Behaviors Scale (PLBS) (preschool only) & Learning Behaviors Scale (LBS) (kindergarten only)

      Overall classroom environment(baseline & post-test only)

      • Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R)

      Teacher-child interactions(baseline & post-test only)

      • Arnett Detachment scale
      • Arnett Harshness scale
      • Arnett Permissiveness scale
      • Arnett Positive Interactions scale

      Classroom Instruction(post-test only)

      • Early literacy (Teacher Book Reading Scale (TBRS) Print and Letter Knowledge)
      • Early literacy (TBRS Written Expression scale)
      • Phonological awareness (TBRS Phonological Awareness scale)
      • Language (TBRS Book Reading)
      • Language (TBRS Oral Language scales)
      • Early mathematics (TBRS Math Concepts scale)

      Analysis

      Analysis was conducted at the individual child-level (for child specific measures) and the classroom-level (for teacher specific measures). Randomization was at done at the preschool classroom level. Appendix B (page B-10) describes the use of hierarchical linear models to account for nesting of children within classrooms. Appendix B (page B-8) also states that the analyses used an intent-to-treat logic by including all randomized subjects, even if they were lost to follow-up.

      The unadjusted mean scores, adjusted mean difference scores with standard errors, and effect sizes were reported. Effect sizes were calculated on using repeat measures (RM) analysis or analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) depending on the data available at each time point.

      Adjustments of child-level measures included the following covariates: (a) child’s age, (b) gender, (c) race/ethnicity, (d) disability status (as reported by parent), and (e) mother’s education. For all analysis of classroom-level measures adjustments included the following covariates: (a) teacher has a BA degree, (b) previous teaching experience, (c) child/adult ratio in classroom, (d) average class size, (e) city size, and (f) geographic site.

      RM analysis was used to detect effects on the phonological awareness and social behavioral measures at baseline and post-test. RM analysis was also used to detect effects on the three mathematics outcomes, the three reading outcomes, the overall classroom environment and teacher-child interactions at all three data collection time points.

      ANCOVAs were used to assess the long term effects on phonological awareness and the three social behavioral measures; the covariates, for which, included the baseline score of the measure plus those listed above. ANCOVAs were also conducted for the measures of classroom instruction using the same covariates as listed above; however, classroom instruction data was only collected at post-test, thus baseline data was not included as a covariate.

      OUTCOMES

      Implementation Fidelity

      The research team collected videotaped data to measure the fidelity of ELLM curriculum implementation. Teachers were videotaped twice during the preschool year. The videotapes were segmented and coded to capture the presence or absence of the ELLM critical elements. Scores ranged from 0 to 147. A score of 118 or more was considered high implementation fidelity, 89 to 117 as medium fidelity, and 88 or below as low implementation fidelity.

      Even though 11 of the 14 teachers were in their second year of implementing the ELLM, none were rated as high implementers. The intervention teachers were all rated as low to medium implementers. All but one of the control teachers were rated as low implementers (the one exception was rated as a medium implementer). Overall the intervention teachers were given a global 'Medium' rating on implementation fidelity.

      Baseline Equivalence

      At baseline, the groups were equivalent at on all measured outcomes (as listed below), on all child demographics and on most parent and teacher demographics. A higher percentage of parents in the treatment group had completed some post-high school education relative to those assigned to the control group (41% vs. 29%, p < .01). Additionally, teachers in the treatment group had more years of experience teaching in a preschool setting relative to those assigned to the control group (9 years vs. 4 years, p < .01).

      Differential Attrition

      One control and one treatment preschool dropped out of the study during the preschool year. There is no discussion of how these two preschools differed from the 28 who remained. For individuals, Appendix B (page B-8) states in general that there was no evidence of different rates of attrition across experimental and control groups but does not present specific analyses of differential attrition for this study.

      Post-test

      Of the 23 measures assessed at post-test (end of pre-k), none showed a statistically significant effect of the program the ELLM children's outcomes relative to the children in the control condition.

      Long-term

      At the long term follow up (1 year after the program ended i.e. end of K), the two child-level measures of language development showed statistically significant effects. They had small to medium effect sizes (PPVT: ES = .34, p < .05; TOLD Grammatical Understanding: ES = .44, p < .05). The other 10 outcome measures were not significantly influenced by the intervention.

      Cosgrove, M., Fountain, C., Wehry, S., Wood, J., and Kasten, K. (2006). Randomized Field Trial of an Early Literacy Curriculum and Instructional Support System. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

      This complimentary experimental study is the first year of the national study (PCERC, 2006) and took place in Florida during the 2002/2003 school year. The national study pilot study used a subset of this study. This study used different outcome measures and had more power because of the larger sample, but was otherwise similar in design.

      Design

      As described above, low-performing public elementary schools housing at least one early intervention pre-kindergarten class were identified in each of the three locations and randomly assigned to either ELLM or wait-list control status. Additionally, two Head Start and two subsidized sites were randomly selected in the neighborhood of each elementary school. One class from each site was randomly selected to participate. Treatment group classes implemented the Early Literacy and Learning Model curriculum in conjunction with existing curriculum. Control group classes only implemented existing curriculum. (Prevalent existing curricula were Creative Curriculum, High/Scope, and High Reach.) The intervention lasted for a year with measures applied at the start and end of the year.

      Sample

      466 four-year-old children attending preschools in low-income neighborhoods served as the study sample for this investigation. These children were drawn from 48 pre-school classes, from three different geographic locations in Florida. These three locations represented differing degrees of urbanicity. 12% of the children studied were white, 71% were black, 8% were Hispanic, and 9% were of other racial background.

      Measures

      Data were collected on the children’s ability to recognize the 52 upper- and lowercase letters of the alphabet, and their early literacy abilities were measured by the Test of Early Reading Ability-Third Edition, Form A (TERA-3).

      The TERA-3 is composed of three scales measuring unique but related early literacy skills: 1) the Alphabet scale measures graphophomenic knowledge; 2) the Conventions of Print scale measures knowledge of conventions of English print; and 3) the Meaning scale measures ability to comprehend meaning of print. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of internal consistency for 4-year-old children for the Reading Quotient and the Alphabet, Conventions, and Meaning subtests are .97, .94, .88, and .94 respectively. Alpha coefficients for the 5-year-old children were comparable.

      The Alphabet Letter Recognition Inventory (ALRI) is a locally developed inventory of children’s ability to recognize the upper- and lowercase letters of the alphabet. Trained assessors presented uppercase letter flashcards, arranged in a fixed non-alphabetic order, to each child. The child was asked to name the letter. Following presentation of the uppercase letters, lowercase letter flashcards were presented in a similar fashion. The children’s responses were recorded on scannable forms and computer scored.

      Analysis

      Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to test the statistical significance of these observed differences because children experienced ELLM together in classes rather than in one-on-one settings. Child-level variables included in the analyses were the TERA-3 pretest standardized scores, the ALRI pretest scores, the child’s age in months on September 1, 2002, and gender. All continuous variables were grand-mean centered. Class-level variables included in the analyses were class assignment as ELLM or wait-list control, urbanicity, and educational attainment of the teacher (coded as either having completed a bachelor’s degree or not).

      Baseline Equivalence and Differential Attrition

      At baseline, and again, near the end of the school year, children were assessed on their emerging literacy abilities and on their ability to recognize the 52 upper- and lowercase letters of the alphabet. Treatment children did not differ significantly from control children on these measures at baseline.

      Attrition occurred at both the site and child levels. One wait-list control and one ELLM classroom in the largest city withdrew from the study and were not included in the analysis. In the 48 remaining classrooms, child-level attrition occurred, and 21% of the remaining children with pretest scores were unavailable for posttest. Comparison of the TERA-3 mean pretest scores of children with both pretest and posttest scores to those of the children with only pretest scores provided no evidence of systematic attrition.

      Post-test

      Examination of the TERA-3 and ALRI posttest scores indicated that those of the ELLM children were higher than those of the wait-list control children on all measures.

      The child-level variables were statistically significant predictors in all of the analyses except for the child’s gender in the Analysis of the Meaning scale. In all cases, older children scored at lower posttest levels than younger children, and, where gender was significant, boys achieved at lower levels than girls. These findings were the same for children in the ELLM and wait-list control classrooms.

      At the class level, only assignment to ELLM or wait-list control classes was a statistically significant predictor in all analyses. The educational attainment of the classroom teacher was a statistically significant predictor only in the analysis of the Conventions of Print scale, and for this analysis, children who were taught by bachelor-degreed teachers achieved at higher levels in both the ELLM and wait-list control classrooms.

      Analyses indicated that ELLM was more effective than traditional approaches in raising the emergent literacy achievement of children. As measured by all TERA-3 scales, the children experiencing the ELLM literacy curriculum and instruction support system achieved higher adjusted mean posttest levels of emergent literacy skills than children in the wait-list control classrooms. With the exception of the differences in the TERA-3 Conventions of Print scale adjusted mean posttest scores, resulting effect sizes were 25 percent of a standard deviation or larger (ARLI ES=.25, TERA-3 Reading ES=.28, TERA-3 Alphabet=.28, TERA-3 Conventions of Print=.17, and TERA-3 Meaning ES= .29).